Some Chatham County commissioners were a little leery of transferring $1 million from the budget funding the final phase of the Truman Parkway on Friday, but staff convinced most of them the move was necessary and would have no impact on the parkway’s completion.

The funds were needed to help pay for the removal and replacement of the Hunt Drive and Faye Drive bridges on Burnside Island after the Georgia Department of Transportation found them to be structurally deficient in 2010. As a result, the weights of vehicles allowed to travel across the bridges has been reduced.

A $2.5 million construction contract was awarded to Rogers Bridge Company on Friday for the project, which is expected to begin within 45 days and take about 600 days to complete.

Before the vote, commissioners Lori Brady and Tony Center had voiced concerns about using the Truman funds before that project was completed.

Commissioner Helen Stone and staff said the bridge projects were a matter of public safety.

“We do not have a choice,” Stone said. “The state has said we need to replace those bridges.”

County Manager Russ Abolt assured commissioners there was still sufficient funding to complete the parkway by the end of the year as planned.

The transfer was approved, with Brady casting the sole opposing vote.

In other actions, commissioners:

• Approved a professional services agreement with Annashae Custom Staffing Connections for a psychologist at the county jail for $63 an hour, with a minimum of 20 hours per week.

• Approved a $123,085 three-month lease agreement with Mobile Kitchens USA for temporary mobile kitchens for the jail to prepare for the current kitchen’s planned renovations.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

I know what the LAW is regarding Maxuimum Practricable Utilization of firms on projects like this. IF Minorities and Women were given "maximum practicable utilization" opportunities, then the qualifications you mentioned apply. But, if not, then the competition is less than legal.

I know what the LAW is regarding Maxuimum Practricable Utilization of firms on projects like this. IF Minorities and Women were given "maximum practicable utilization" opportunities, then the qualifications you mentioned apply. But, if not, then the competition is less than legal.

Yulb,
I'm trying to make sure you, and others understand there is a LAW that requires that in order for "the contracting process" to be LEGAL, there must be MAXIMUM PRACTICABLE OPPORTUNITY for firms owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals to win the contract. Only if this is done, can a "contracting process" be deemed fair.

It's too bad that so many folk, including folk in office, do not know or understand this fact of law. It is a failure of leadership that so many of these officials do not know this fact of law. And, it is criminal that even though some know it, they do not comply with it.

Let me try one more time, then, I'm through. I want to explain the basic purpose of Public Law 95-507. This law provides that there must be "maximum practicable utilization of firms owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals" in the contracting done by the Government or contractors doing business with the Government.

The determination is made on a case by case basis. Not ALL minorities and women and others belonging to these groups are entitled to claim such disadvantagedness. In other words, Blacks and others must establish their status by the preponderance of the evidence. Some Blacks "qualify", some don't

I'm as much against those who are not "qualified" to use the claim of disadvantaged, as many of you are. I detest "Fronts" and "pass-throughs". At the same time I insist and demand that those who ARE eligible shall be entitled to equal protection of the law, as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

hope none of them win any contracts. They awarded a "minority owned" company to do brick work at the new jail construction. The visitors center had to be nearly reconstructed due to the shoddy work. I guess there is no need to learn the trade and gain a respectable reputation if the government is gonna throw work your way whether you are qualified or not.

What happened to all the stimulus money meant for infrastructure? Wasn't that meant for bridges and roads? Now the Obama wants more money for bridges and roads. Wait a minute, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me!!!!

Surely you know that the Stimulus money was only a "quick fix" for SOME of what neeeded "fixing". We will need another infusion and then later, yet another infusion. The key is the "NEED". If it is there, then we ought go ahead and supply it. If it's not, then, we don't.

Were you really "fooled". I was not. And, i believe the thinking Americans were not, either. So, let's determine if the NEED is there?

Why are you so enamoured with "race crap" stuff. We use "socially and economically disadvantaged" and you see "race crap". We disclose that ANYONE can be eliglible, including you. Still you are stuck on "race crap".

Better yet, doubting Thomas, I wish God would make you "one of us" for just a week. It's easy for you to throw stones, if you've never been there, done that. I've seen you write about what you used to "see", and what "others" acted like.

But, have you ever been Black? Live in our "skin" for just one week, if you dare.

I was a Panther for a while, in the 1960s. I've been Black all my life. By the way I used to be a Democrat, back in the 1960s. Do I have to be stuck with that, too. Oh, I was "PO" at one time-I ain't that anymore, either. Don't ever plan to be that, again.

I was un-educated at one time, too. I can't claim that, now. Many things have changed for me. How about you, Sport....

Hank , you can tell you and your crowd were never in Atlanta during the 80's to 2000's they would have run you out of town on a rail , spouting your law !!!!! and i'm talking about your folks !!!!!!!!How do you think the MBE's made their fortunes in Atlanta ???????

It just so happens that Atlanta was one of my favorite stomping grounds, back in the 80s and 90s. When I was with Reagan in the early 80s, one of our most active and effective Minority Small Business Program was in Atlanta. I was there, two three days at a time, every month.

Then, in the late 80s, when I had gone back to California, a group of us used to fly in to meet with U.S. Senator Sam Nunn and help him put together his HUBZone program legislation (Public Law 105-135.) "The Historically Underutilized Business Zones (HUBZone) program helps small businesses in urban and rural communities gain preferential access to federal procurement opportunities." Look it up, it's still on the books.

BenThere, I don't know where you were, but I was there. By the way, I can proudly say that NOBODY ever RAN me out of a town, or a job.

Back in 1976, I was a City Councilman in Pasadena, CA. I endorsed Governor Ronald Reagan for President. I was selected as a Delegate to go to the National Republican Convention. Reagan came out publicly against Affirmative Action, in spite of my advice to him that he not do so. So, I talked with him, and then withdrew my support, and refused to go as a Delegate. And, I guess I did "repudiate" him. I honestly don't remember the exact words I used at the time.

Gerald Ford's people called me to talk with him, and throw my support to him, and be one of his Delegates. I refused them, saying I would not do that. I told them that while I would not "publicly" support, Ronald Reagan, I would not publicly oppose him, either. I don't think they appreciated that. But, that was their problem.

Some of you have been trying to figure out how I could do what I did and still be appointed by Reagan later. Why is it so hard, for you to accept that they thought enough of me to call me to D.C. to be a part of his Administration, later-in the 80s. I was the only minority on the 23-person "Presidential TaskForce on International Private Enterprise". We advised President Reagan on how to spend the $7.5 Billion per year that the United States Agency for International Development had. They, then, appointed me to be Associate Administrator for Minority Small Business and Capital Ownership Development at The U.S. Small Business Administration. After a few months,of doing both,I decided the two positions were too much and I resigned from the USAID Taskforce.

I also decided, and told them, I did not wish to serve a full term upon the expected re-election of Ronald Reagan. They understood and accepted my decision. So, I left when I got ready. That was 6 months after Ronald Reagan got re-elected. I needed to get back to making "real money".

Now, that is what happened. WE decided, our relationship. WE had very special relationships-most people would not understand. But, WE did.

I remember Ed Meese (Reagan's Attorney General)was asked one time, by the press relative to a lot of scuttle butt that went around about the Reagan Administration. He answered: "Those who KNOW, are not talking-those who are talking don't know. Me, I am not talking."

But, I hope you got it from someone reputable, and real, and "connected" to the official groups involved. You know with names like (well, if your info is real, then you will already know the names-won't you).

Actually, he did offer me something else. But, I chose to go home. See, we Reagan folk took care of our own. WE did not let others decide for us.

By the way, I don't know where else you heard "that Reagan story". This is the first time I've told it so completely. Please print "your version". Or, let's see what "somebody" told you. I'd like to see how preposterous it is.

I've never said that anybody must give preference to anyone based on their ethnicity or gender. I've said what the law says. The law says they cannot be excluded from an equitable opportunity to be awarded contract opportunities. The law does NOT say customers have to "prefer" unqualified minority or women contractors over others.

Yes, it does say they must be afforded "maximum practicable opportunity" to be awarded contracts. But, that leaves a HUGE degree of latitude to customers in choosing. You give them ample opportunity to qualify and they fail to do so, you've satisfied the law and you can choose otherwise.

You got screwed and you should have filed a FORMAL PROTEST. The law does not allow "preference" to be given to one American over another. The Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV of the US Constitution is clear on that. Furthermore, numerous cases have decided that.

No doubt in my mind you were told what you stated. But, whomever told you that, was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. And, you can go to them and tell them I told you that. Better yet, whip out a copy of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. In addition you ought present your case to the City Council.

Oops, I can hear folk hollering, "But, then, they won't give him a contract." Duh..it sounds to me like he said they are NOT giving him contracts, in the first place. So, what has he got to lose?

OUTSTANDING, that you should bring that up, at this time. Now, that you have, you should READ it and re-read it, yourself. Perhaps then, you can get a clearer idea of how consistent my positions are NOW, as compared with 1976. In addition you can see the position of others. WE were not so well received in certain parts of the Black Community. But, then, that's OK, because much of the White Community disagreed with us, too.

However, we were in leadership positions, and we felt it our obligation to lead. And, we felt you could not lead from behind. So, we pushed the envelope, and we challenged the status quo. President Ford did not particularly like what we had to say, but, that was his prerogative. Ronald Reagan, thought that we meant something more than we did. This caused the "misunderstanding" we had. And, we were "temporarily" separated.

Things like that happen in a Movement.... By the way, this group of us was interracial. There was 12 of us. Only 4 out of that 12 was Black. We were all elected officials, or Presidential appointees. In other words we were "leadership folk" that worked together for the common good.

"The point we are saying, getting back to the situation in Pasadena --of a political nature. I am a Republican and I am supporting the Governor of California, so I would not allow myself to be used by the President, President Ford, for that purpose. I don't think,though --and someone said this earlier --we should stop doing the things we are doing, just because it is election time. Why should I oppose a good program by a man who is the present President because I am supporting someone else. Why shouldn't I come to a forum like this, to talk to the President of our United States to give my viewpoints on that issue.

The issues as we see it back in Pasadena are this: One, will we be allowed to do our thing in Pasadena? Will we be allowed to have freedom to make our own decisions based upon our neighborhood rather than what a court decides based upon its interpretation of some incident which was probably appropriate at that time." -The Honorable Henry T. Wilfong Jr.-

So, Yulb,

This is probably the reason you posted the citation which included this, one of the comments I made in a White House Press conference, after a group of us had lunch with President Gerald Ford to discuss court-order busing of School children. The Press Conference was June 12, 1976.

I stated my support for the Governor of California (Ronald Reagan), but stated why I would come and speak with President Ford.

What's got me confused, Yulb, is if you doubted my authenticity, why in the world would you bring to surface something like this?

Went to a class reunion in my home town in 2010. After all this time we could not have one class reunion, we had to have two. One for blacks and one for whites... even though at the time, after integration, we had only one high school.

It's been a long time and the wound has not healed, not by a long shot.

"Meanwhile, Wilfong wrote a personal letter to President Ford, volunteering to join his forces"at" a late hour: to stop the nomination of Reagan." Yulb, who you gonna believe, Jet Magazine or me. THAT "personal letter to Ford" never HAPPENED. Oh, I was ASKED to do it-but it never happened, unless someone forged one.

Now, you and others wonder how I could "repudiate" Ronald Reagan-which I do acknowledge; and write and say several things that I did about him-which Jet accurately stated, yet be picked by him later -TWICE in less than 8 years later. Well, for one thing, I notified Reagan's people that though I would NOT got to the Republican Convention and support him, I would NOT support anyone against him. They were not totally happy, but they considered that a "W".

What about the Ford people? Well, what about them? I was a Reagan Man-who temporarily fell out with them. But, all the "important folk", WE knew where I was.